Dublin may see contra-flow cyclists

ten speed racer

Lumen wrote: »

The DB scheme is hugely popular with the existing arrangement of one-way streets. So all those people are currently managing fine.

But if we could make it easier to cycle in the city and encourage more people to use DBs, why not do it?

Lumen wrote: »

This idea just smacks of legalising salmoning, and encourages cyclists to see themselves as different or special. We need exactly the opposite approach. Rip up the off-road cycle tracks, paint over the cycle lanes, and get everyone sharing the same space.

Attempts to provide cyclist-specific road space further alienate us from other road users.

Different types of road users are already treated differently. You need different licences for buses, HGVs and cars; the speed limits are different for buses, HGVs and cars; and HGV drivers have limits on how long they can drive.

My view of cycle lanes are mixed, and there are certainly many that serve no useful purpose. Furthermore, the whole naked streets thing look interesting. But, there are other cycle lanes that certainly make cycling easier.

Lumen wrote: »

Pandering to the lazy and incompetent may be a worthy cause for some, but I don't care for it.

Fair enough if you don't care about encouraging others to cycle, but there are societal benefits from encouraging more people to cycle that I'm sure you're aware of--less congestion, less pollution, healthier people etc.

On a slightly more selfish level, more cyclists mean less accidents--so by encouraging cycling, you'd be protecting yourself.

markpb

iregk wrote: »

I'm just waiting for the first head on colision when a cyclist has to move out into oncoming traffic to go around a car parked in the bike lane.

There are already contra-flow cycle lanes in Dublin. Has anyone been killed? People said the same prior to the introduction of the DBs - all those newbies cycled, someone will surely die. Has anyone died?

Lumen wrote: »

The DB scheme is hugely popular with the existing arrangement of one-way streets. So all those people are currently managing fine.

There's no reason at all to change the status quo? You're an innovative person, aren't you?

This idea just smacks of legalising salmoning, and encourages cyclists to see themselves as different or special. We need exactly the opposite approach. Rip up the off-road cycle tracks, paint over the cycle lanes, and get everyone sharing the same space.

I do partially subscribe to the shared-space system you're referring to, it's not going to happen here. If nothing else, the complete lack of RTA enforcement by the Gardai means that behaviour of cyclists and drivers is shockingly poor. There's nothing DCC can do about that but they can provide better facilities. Lots of people refuse to cycle in Dublin because of the one-way systems and the perceived danger. You might not agree but it's a real fear and stops people cycling.

doozerie

markpb wrote:

I do partially subscribe to the shared-space system you're referring to, it's not going to happen here. If nothing else, the complete lack of RTA enforcement by the Gardai means that behaviour of cyclists and drivers is shockingly poor. There's nothing DCC can do about that but they can provide better facilities. Lots of people refuse to cycle in Dublin because of the one-way systems and the perceived danger. You might not agree but it's a real fear and stops people cycling.

The drive behind contra-flow lanes in this thread seems to be based on the assumption that one-way systems are a deterrent to cycling. You bundle this in with perceived danger as being a very effective deterrent. Is there any basis for this view of one-way systems being such a deterrent? I've never seen the results of studies that focused on this topic but I would be interested in reading them if they are available.

I'd also be curious to know how dangerous people really believe cycling in Dublin to be. It gets trotted out as a reason quite often, but it's kind of self-fulfilling in that the more you associate cycling with danger during discussions of cycling the more people will believe it to be the case.

As for what DCC can do, well they could start by tackling extremely badly designed junctions that currently exist, such as those that put a cycle lane up the inside of a left-turning car lane, they could improve the road markings so that the queue of traffic ahead doesn't obscure paintings on the road which indicate whether lanes are left-turning/right-turning/straight-on only in order to help avoid the mad shoving that goes on at the junction itself for people to get into the correct lane at the last second, etc. So, in fact there is quite a lot they could do right now to make life safer for cyclists.

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

I'd also be curious to know how dangerous people really believe cycling in Dublin to be. It gets trotted out as a reason quite often, but it's kind of self-fulfilling in that the more you associate cycling with danger during discussions of cycling the more people will believe it to be the case.

Non-cyclists often cite danger as a reason they don't cycle. The stats have been posted here before, sorry I don't have a link.

Whether the opinions of ignorant non-participants should count for anything is another issue. That road leads to nonsense opinion-management policy like "fear of crime" policing.

I vaguely recall that inclement weather is stated as another major factor, but since most bikes are sold without mudguards I assume that once people actually get to the brink of making a decision they apply a different set of criteria.

blorg

I think the "it dissuades cycling" is a red herring.

What is the downside of allowing contra-flow cycling?

It is common elsewhere in Europe and works well. It is currently being trialled in London.

Why not?

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

What is the downside of allowing contra-flow cycling?

It is not consistent to argue on the one hand that a 30kph limit is justified because speed differentials are dangerous, and on the other that it makes sense to allow cyclists to cycle against the flow of traffic.

CramCycle

markpb wrote: »

There are already contra-flow cycle lanes in Dublin. Has anyone been killed? People said the same prior to the introduction of the DBs - all those newbies cycled, someone will surely die. Has anyone died?

The law of the land says to be on/in a vechicle on the road you have to have read, fully understand and be compliant with the rules of the road, some of these people clearly haven’t. Not that I blame them, dublin bikes should have clear and easy to follow guides to cycling that they can follow. Alot of Continental European visitors presume we have the same rules as them and you can clearly see a few near misses a day in the city centre. Not that, that is any different to all the near misses and collisions that those of us who know the rules have.

doozerie wrote: »

Do you really mean to say here that breaking the traffic laws is understandable? I would agree that feeling aggrieved over aspects of the road infrastructure design is understandable, but I certainly wouldn't agree that this justifies completely selfish behaviour on a bike. On a daily basis I see cyclists ignoring red lights on my commute, frequently resulting in them cleaving their way through pedestrians and sometimes other cyclists as they do so. That kind of behaviour is no more understandable to me than car drivers choosing to break red lights because they are running late, overtaking other road users where it is not safe to do so because they can't bear the thought of being delayed by a few more seconds, etc. It might not have been your intention to condone such actions by cyclists, but your argument certainly helps fuel those that do.

No offence, but every morning I see almost as many cars breaking red lights as cyclists and in my opinion, with a lot less care and consideration than cyclists. Most (not all) cyclists will look out for pedestrians, other cyclists and other road users unless they are in some way mentally diminished. On three occasions in recent times, cars have nearly killed me due to them breaking lights by glancing one way, presuming all is clear and firing on through. Also the Donnybrook/N11 junction beside the Bus station is a death trap at night where I consistently see 3/4 cars a night run the lights in the early hours and if I followed my green light I would be splattered from the junction to the petrol station 100metres up the road. I didn't because it's just getting to dangerous to go through a green light there unless you can see them breaking from a good bit away. My point, don't sling mud at cyclists when cars are equally as bad at breaking these rules. Cars do at speed in quiet times, cyclists do it slowly in rush hour.

By the way, I do not condone cyclists or motor cars breaking lights, I know it sounds like I am but IMO they should all be punished.

markpb wrote: »

Telling someone who wants to cycle from O'Connell St to the Luas at SSG that they have to take this crazy route. Even worse is this route from the DB stand on Fitzwilliam Sq North to Busaras.

Whats wrong with going that way over to Bus Aras? It's a 5 minute cycle, if even. Also if you started heading the other direction down Fitzwilliam st. and then onto Merrion Sq. North you'd pry save a bit of time if it really is such a major concern.

Sorry if this seemed like a rant but I just had a few opinions at once.

markpb

Lumen wrote: »

It is not consistent to argue on the one hand that a 30kph limit is justified because speed differentials are dangerous, and on the other that it makes sense to allow cyclists to cycle against the flow of traffic.

If the contra-flow cycle lanes are properly segregated like in the other examples shown in this thread, why would it be dangerous?

Lumen

markpb wrote: »

If the contra-flow cycle lanes are properly segregated like in the other examples shown in this thread, why would it be dangerous?

Because I'll have some wobbly idiot coming within a couple of inches of my handlebars at a closing speed of 40kph.

markpb

Lumen wrote: »

Because I'll have some wobbly idiot coming within a couple of inches of my handlebars at a closing speed of 40kph.

The south end of the O'Connell St cycle lane is physically segregated. Have you heard of any cyclist falling out of that lane into traffic? The cycle lane on Andrew street is contra-flow and not segregated, surely someone must have wobbled into oncoming traffic? I haven't heard of either, have you?

doozerie

CramCycle wrote: »

No offence, but every morning I see almost as many cars breaking red lights as cyclists and in my opinion, with a lot less care and consideration than cyclists. Most (not all) cyclists will look out for pedestrians, other cyclists and other road users unless they are in some way mentally diminished. On three occasions in recent times, cars have nearly killed me due to them breaking lights by glancing one way, presuming all is clear and firing on through. Also the Donnybrook/N11 junction beside the Bus station is a death trap at night where I consistently see 3/4 cars a night run the lights in the early hours and if I followed my green light I would be splattered from the junction to the petrol station 100metres up the road. I didn't because it's just getting to dangerous to go through a green light there unless you can see them breaking from a good bit away. My point, don't sling mud at cyclists when cars are equally as bad at breaking these rules. Cars do at speed in quiet times, cyclists do it slowly in rush hour.

By the way, I do not condone cyclists or motor cars breaking lights, I know it sounds like I am but IMO they should all be punished.

Aren't we both arguing the same point here, that breaking red lights is bad (regardless of who does it)? There seems to be an assumption amongst some of the references to my posts in this thread that I am somehow defending idiotic motorists. I don't know how to be any clearer about it, but I'll try: I despise anyone that routinely ignores the rules of the road.

Perhaps we differ on the degree to which we believe such behaviour on the part of cyclists is dangerous though. I've seen enough collisions between cyclists, and between cyclists and pedestrians, to believe that the risks posed by a fast moving cyclist are high. In fact, I've taken out a pedestrian myself who ran out from between slow moving traffic in front of me and used his face to fend me off - essentially, I executed an impressive cycling headbutt to the side of his face. Thankfully I was wearing a helmet which spared me from a major headache and him from a cracked cheekbone and possibly a cracked jaw. He hit the ground about 2 metres ahead, while my bike stopped dead due to his face absorbing all of my momentum. Amazingly, he was actually able to get up afterwards but I expect he was suffering the after effect of it for days afterwards - it took that long for my neck to (mostly) recover. Basically, a fast moving cyclist can cause serious damage to the human body in a collision, add to that the fact that many cyclists that I see breaking red lights do so at speed and while pedestrians are crossing on a green light, and things can get nasty pretty quickly.

jaqian

Is it true that cycle lanes with a broken white line can be freely used by motorised traffic? If so why have them at all.

markpb

jaqian wrote: »

Is it true that cycle lanes with a broken white line can be freely used by motorised traffic? If so why have them at all.

Yes. DCC say they serve as a reminder to motorists that cyclists may be to their left.

BluePlanet

I like the idea of contra-flow.
I don't like the segregation of the "bicycle lane".

blorg

jaqian wrote: »

Is it true that cycle lanes with a broken white line can be freely used by motorised traffic? If so why have them at all.

Cars are meant to stay out of them when possible, not park in the unless there is no other option, and not longer than 30 minutes if they are the only option, etc.

Empirical observation would lead me to believe that they cars do tend to leave more room to their left (where the road is wide enough to do so, sometimes it is not) on roads that have them. Particularly cars in queues it gives you room to move up the inside.

CramCycle

jaqian wrote: »

Is it true that cycle lanes with a broken white line can be freely used by motorised traffic? If so why have them at all.

I think only the ones with Solid lines have to be taken seriously, the rest are like markpb pointed out, a wasteless reminder, some aren't even coloured and are completely unnoticeable.

Lumen

CramCycle

Lumen wrote: »

He's young enough to get away with cycling on the pavement. Or am I missing the point and he feels segregated because it's expected he cycles on the pavement? Poor kid, it must be so confusing for them nowadays, with rules for some and not for others, if only we'd listen to his emotional pain due to cycling.

jaqian

BluePlanet wrote: »

I like the idea of contra-flow.
I don't like the segregation of the "bicycle lane".

What is the point of a cycle lane if it is not segregated? Why not do away with them altogether then?

tomasrojo

markpb wrote: »

There are already contra-flow cycle lanes in Dublin. Has anyone been killed?

The contraflow cycle lane leading south fromBolton Street struck me as somewhat dangerous when it was installed, and indeed I do know of one individual who was struck by a car turning north from Parnell Street not long after they put in the contraflow. As you'd expect, the driver hadn't checked his or her right, since it was a one-way street and all the "traffic" was coming from the left. They painted a warning on the road after that, but it's not very obvious. The warning was painted for the motorists, but I think the cyclist requires a warning too.

I also saw a cyclist on the contraflow on Inchicore Road being taken away in an ambulance; I think he'd been hit by a car emerging from a driveway --again, the motorist hadn't checked his or her right, since it was a one-way street and all the "traffic" was coming from the left.

I'm still in favour of them, but it mightn't be any harm for cyclists to be advised that motorists may not be expecting them.

I imagine if a lane is used a lot it's a lot safer, since drivers get used to the idea of cyclists approaching from the other side.

tomasrojo

jaqian wrote: »

What is the point of a cycle lane if it is not segregated? Why not do away with them altogether then?

Many of them have no point, except to add to the metric of "kilometres of cycle track constructed". Contraflows do have a point, though, in that they allow cyclists to do someting that other road users can't. These cycle tracks I'm in favour of. Cycle tracks that merely shadow the main road and sprout yield symbols at every junction, major or minor, I would be quite happy to see done away with.

Victor

Usually quite satirical, but not quite so much today: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0303/1224265498786.html

tomasrojo wrote: »

I also saw a cyclist on the contraflow on Inchicore Road being taken away in an ambulance; I think he'd been hit by a car emerging from a driveway --again, the motorist hadn't checked his or her right, since it was a one-way street and all the "traffic" was coming from the left.

In fairness if it was a driveway, they should know the terrain.

tomasrojo

Victor wrote: »

Usually quite satirical, but not quite so much today: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0303/1224265498786.html

Funny tone there. I'm not sure whether he's having a go at FG (he seems to be) or mocking cyclists who have a persecution complex. Or both.

Victor wrote: »

In fairness if it was a driveway, they should know the terrain.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

I was using that contraflow once and I slowed down because I saw a car coming out of one of the driveways. She pulled all the way across the lane and then when I coughed loudly she looked at me and then looked embarrassed and put her face in her hands; I think it wasn't the first time she'd forgotten to look right.

Andrew33

HonalD wrote: »

Back on the topic - I think the idea that contra flow cyclists would be permitted to cycle against traffic in a one way street. It works on the continent (doesn't everything!) on the basis that the onus is on the driver to watch out for cyclists, contraversal or what!?! Requires legislation etc. etc. etc. :rolleyes:

I think a lot of cyclists in dublin city centre already have a contra flow thing going on anyway. I don't know how many times I've turned from Drury St onto Exchequer St only to be confronted by a cyclist cycling the wrong way up a one way street and I would shoulder 100% of the blame if there was a collision! I think cyclists (I know I'm generalising) need to take responsibility for their own actions when it comes to breaking the current ROTR.

blorg

Andrew33 wrote: »

only to be confronted by a cyclist cycling the wrong way up a one way street and I would shoulder 100% of the blame if there was a collision!

Why do you think this, as it is not legally the case.

Andrew33

blorg wrote: »

Why do you think this, as it is not legally the case.

Is it not?? I've always been of the belief that if a pedestrian or a cyclist fell out of the sky and landed on my car I'd be at fault as I'm in charge of a motorised vehicle and therefore I drive with extreme caution where peds and cyclists abound. It's open season on them now:D

Lumen

Andrew33 wrote: »

Is it not?? I've always been of the belief that if a pedestrian or a cyclist fell out of the sky and landed on my car I'd be at fault as I'm in charge of a motorised vehicle and therefore I drive with extreme caution where peds and cyclists abound.

Which is very sensible, because you wouldn't want to have to go through all this:

The jury passed a verdict of accidental death.

Stark

Andrew33 wrote: »

I think a lot of cyclists in dublin city centre already have a contra flow thing going on anyway. I don't know how many times I've turned from Drury St onto Exchequer St only to be confronted by a cyclist cycling the wrong way up a one way street and I would shoulder 100% of the blame if there was a collision! I think cyclists (I know I'm generalising) need to take responsibility for their own actions when it comes to breaking the current ROTR.

That area is particularly in need of a contra-flow as they have both a Dublin bikes stand and a bicycle parking facility in the middle of the one-way system. I've tried to get from the DB stand onto George's street a few times while following the system correctly and just ended up back where I started. Eventually was easiest just to cycle the wrong way for 50m. (Looking at the map, it seems you can go down Dame Court but I'm sure there was a turning restriction last time I tried).

doozerie

Stark wrote: »

Eventually was easiest just to cycle the wrong way for 50m.

Wouldn't walking have been an easier option?

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

Wouldn't walking have been an easier option?

Not easier, no, you have to get off the bike, walk it (avoiding being shinned by the pedals) and then get back on it when you are done. Nothing easier about that.